Bet Analysis Predictions | Football Predictions | Betting Tips
European Politics betting odds - Politics | Sportsbet
EUROPA - European Union website, the official EU website
European Parliament elections and Greece
Brexit and European Elections Betting and Analysis
European Politics Next Country To Leave EU Betting Odds
CIDOB - Greece: its European elections
Greek Election: The Eurozone Could Finally Collapse, But
European Politics Betting Odds | Politics | Oddschecker
bet european elections greece
bet european elections greece - win
How would Nations unify ?
It is a commun trope in Fiction that the Nations of Earth will unify. See the "UN" from "The Expanse" as an example. Now, one can question who in the name of Everything holy all of the World decided to become one, but that is not the question. Mine is more directed towards Europe, because as of now, it seems to be the closest Group of Nations that would benifit from that. The Reasoning for Unification is that Nations like India, China, USA and to some extend Russia will only get more powerful over time. While most European Nations cannot really compete in any way. So how would it be done ? Is there any Legal Framework for Unification one could follow ? Here is how I think it would be done. This is my opinion and not fact. Firstly, i think it would be a bad idea for any single Nation to lead this efford. Because then you get headlines like "Germany eating all of Europe, again". Which really does not help. Thus my guess is that a few Nations would come together and already form a provisional government ahead of time. Once that is done two Nations hold a Vote. If the Majority of both agree, the provisional government takes over the dutys of the two former Governments, unifing the Nations in the Process. This way, the rest of the Unification is done by a new Nation. Lets say for the Memes France and Germany, in the Future, decide to do this. Now we got a new ugly looking Nation. The next step is exporting this Model to other Nations. It is always sort of bad to force a Vote. Which is probably the hardest part of the plan. Each Nation that wants to join has to have enough Popular Support on its own, to get the Government to hold a Vote. Which is hard to say the least. We are talking about a Continent wide movement for Unification. But hey, stranger things have happend. Each Vote would be a pretty "easy" affair for the most part. If the vote is yes, the European Government takes over the dutys and slowly switches out the Institutions from the former Nations with its own. Again, the whole point is to streamline and Centralise Power. So a lot of Departments would be merged. Which would result in one hell of a cluster fuck for the next years. Now this is where i will lose people but here is my projection for how this could look. I would expect Western Europe to unify in one swop. Spain, Portugal, France, the Benelux, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Italy, Norway, Sweden and MAYBE Finnland in one Nation. Germany and France are already pretty interconnected not to mention that talks about the Benelux being one have never really stopped. When it comes to Eastern Europe. Well.... So, i could see the Baltic Region joining since they have been pretty pro EU and pro NATO for some unknown reason. Russia Poland, and here i will a lot of people, had been pretty Pro EU but in recent years... Lets just say it changed to the point where i cant really make a projection. The Balkan´s are yet another mixed bag. I could see Nations like Bulgaria actually joining, Dragging Greece with them. The Main reason here being yet again Unknown Turkey But the rest ? Maybe Croatia if they are Lucky. We are talking about the Future so a lot is possible. Also, i will just assume that GB would join even with Brexit just because historical speaken, they were in Support of Unification since WW2. And i think they will revert back to this stand point. Even with the current, sorry, toxic politics. Switzerland is yet another mixed back. I honestly dont see them giving a fuck about there International position to much. There goal was never to project any power on a large scale. In saying that, i could still see them joining if the new Nation backes the deal sweet enough. Something like a UBI but i would not bet on it. Meaning this is the "With a bit of luck reasonable Map" https://preview.redd.it/yck9y1da8ab61.png?width=3000&format=png&auto=webp&s=d9fee891912122ca36ed27acba7f2b75560f1e57 This the the "It just works" map https://preview.redd.it/j9rwj37d8ab61.png?width=3000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f5abbb4d3ae83b43421fb3736b4be6122e870f8 And this is the "Pretty reasonable" map https://preview.redd.it/y5y09nyg8ab61.png?width=3000&format=png&auto=webp&s=b6fd1302d232b27d635da5c7997e4c198cb9db35 The next matter i want to talk about is the Capital. I think the best Solution is to just switch the Captial every two Elections or so. Meaning every two General Elections, there is also a Vote on the new Capital. This way you avoid symbolism like with Berlin or Paris. If it is up to a Vote, nobody will say anything if Berlin becomes the Capital of Europa for like 8 Years or so. Although a lot of Memes would be generated. "When you lose both word wars so you decide to unify all of Europe and but the Captial to a vote so that in the end, you did achive the dream". And Finally, what sort of Government anyways ? My guess is a constitutional democracy. So yeah, what do you think ?
How does American democracy compare with democracy in the rest of the world? Part 2: divided-power.
Welcome to part two of my two-part series comparing American democracy with the rest of the world, based on the modern classic of comparative politics Patterns of Democracy (2nd edition) by Arend Lijphart (rhymes with pipe-heart), published in 2012. Yes, part one is very long (and very fascinating, I’m told), but you don’t need to read it unless you want to, because I’ll briefly summarize the parts you need to understand. In his book, Lijphart classifies democracies into two broad categories, based on the question: who should the government be responsive to when the people are in disagreement? The answer provided by the majoritarian model of democracy is that government should be responsive to a majority of the people, or often in practice, a plurality of the people. In contrast, the consensus model of democracy accepts support from the majority as only a minimum requirement, and instead seeks to foster broad participation in government and broad agreement on policies. There are two complementary approaches to building a consensus democracy (or building a majoritarian democracy, if the antithesis of each approach is used). The first, the joint-power approach, seeks to broadly share power within institutions, for example multiparty systems, proportional representation, and coalition cabinets. In contrast, the divided-power approach diffuses power across separate institutions, for example across central and regional governments (federalism), upper and lower houses of the legislature (bicameralism), independent central banks, and constitutional courts with the power of judicial review. Note that these two approaches are complementary, not mutually exclusive. A democracy can embrace both joint-power and divided-power approaches, reject both, or embrace one while rejecting the other. As such, every democracy can be roughly divided into one of 4 quadrants. Here is a table displaying a prototypical democracy from each quadrant.
joint-power
non-joint-power
non-divided-power
Israel
UK
divided-power
Switzerland
USA
The United States’ approach to democracy almost uniformly rejects joint-power, while embracing divided-power, so we sit somewhere between a majoritarian democracy like the UK and a consensus democracy like Switzerland. In the last post I discussed non-joint-power in the United States, and in this post I’ll be covering divided-power. At the end, I’ll finish up with Lijphart’s conclusions on the effectiveness of consensus democracy vs. majoritarian democracy in general (spoiler: consensus democracy is better), and I’ll give my thoughts on the future of democratic institutional reform in the United States.
Divided-power in the United States
Let’s take another look at Lijphart’s conceptual map of democracy (democracies further to the left embrace the joint-power approach, while those toward the bottom embrace divided-power). As you can see from the conceptual map, out of the 36 sufficiently large and long-lived democracies in Lijphart’s sample, the United States ranks as a very close second to Germany in its strong approach to divided-power. Other notable divided-power democracies include Australia, Argentina, Canada, and Switzerland, with Switzerland being the joint-power black sheep of the group (Germany is also joint-power, but not to the same extent). Lijphart describes five institutions that can be used to build a divided-power democracy, and the United States has fine examples of all of them.
A federal government instead of a unitary government
A bicameral legislature instead of a unicameral legislature.
A rigid constitution that can only be changed by an extraordinary majority, as opposed to a flexible constitution that can be changed by a simple majority.
A Supreme Court with the power to review legislation, rather than the legislature having the final say on the constitutionality of its own legislation.
A central bank that is independent from the executive, as opposed to a central bank that is controlled by the executive.
Let’s talk about each of these aspects of divided-power, and how they are implemented in the United States in comparison to the rest of the world.
An exceptionally strong federalism
At its most basic, federalism means that there is a guaranteed division of power between central and regional governments. But how do we guarantee that such a division of power remains stable? There are typically three institutions that serve that purpose. Notice that these are the same as 2, 3, and 4 in the list of divided-power institutions above.
A bicameral legislature with a strong second chamber dedicated to representing the regions of the federation.
A written constitution outlining the federal division of power. To keep the division of power stable this constitution needs to be rigid, meaning that it should be difficult to amend.
A supreme or constitutional court that can protect the constitution with the power of judicial review, meaning that the court has the final say on the constitutionality of executive and legislative actions.
What is federalism good for though? Federalism is particularly well suited to very large countries (in terms of both population and geographic size), and to very diverse countries (in terms of religions, ethnic groups, languages spoken, etc.). The United States is the second most populous democracy in the world, with the first being India, which is also federal. The least populous federation is Switzerland, though it is still relatively large, being approximately in the middle of Lijphart’s 36 countries ranked by population. In terms of diversity, the US is only semi-diverse according to Lijphart’s classification, and in any case, state lines are not and probably could not be drawn with regard to separate racial, ethnic, and religious groups, as they can be in some other countries. In the case of India, a highly diverse society, British colonial authorities drew administrative lines without regard for linguistic differences, an unfortunate situation which was not corrected until the 1950’s, providing additional representation for linguistic minorities. Canada and Switzerland are other examples of federations with regional lines drawn (at least roughly) to contain cultural and linguistic minorities. It’s not common, but for diverse societies it’s also possible to have federal territories that are not defined geographically, for example Belgium’s three cultural communities. There is another possible purpose of federalism, and that is to allow the regions to experiment with different forms of government. In practice, however, regional governments tend to be extremely similar to the central government. If you’ve ever wondered why almost every US state has a bicameral legislature, even though state governments are not federal and some states are extremely small, then there’s your answer: there is no good reason, except that it mirrors the form of the central government. Presidentialism, too, has leaked into the states, with governors essentially acting as presidents for each state, despite the flaws of presidentialism I went over in the first post. There has been some experimentation with electoral systems among the states, for example ranked choice voting for congressional and presidential elections in Alaska and Maine and for local elections in many other states. There has only been one notable exception when it comes to majority/plurality electoral systems, in the state of Illinois, which used cumulative voting (a semi-proportional method) for its lower house from 1870 to 1980. Another notable case outside of the USA is Australia, with the state of Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory using the single-transferable-vote form of proportional representation for electing their regional assemblies, unlike the Australian House of Representatives and the regional lower houses of every other Australian state which all use ranked choice voting, a majority/plurality voting method. However, single-transferable-vote is far from unheard of in Australia, as it is also used to elect the national Senate. Of course, in the United States there has been a great degree of experimentation with state laws, including of taxation, drug prohibition, environmental regulations, etc. This has allowed some states to learn from the experiments of others, and at times has allowed certain states to lag far behind the others, depending on your perspective.
Bicameralism taken too far?
Bicameralism, meaning the division of the legislature into two differently constituted chambers, is closely associated with federalism, as the purpose of the second chamber is typically to give additional representation to the regions of the federation. In Lijphart’s sample, all 9 of the federal countries are bicameral, while only about half of the 27 remaining non-federal countries are bicameral. The unicameral countries tend to have smaller populations. Worldwide, about ⅔ of countries are unicameral. Typically, the first chamber tends to be the more important of the two, with the second chamber in a subordinate role, though there are notable exceptions: the United States, Argentina, Italy, Switzerland, and Uruguay all have chambers with approximately equal powers, or arguably in the case of the United States, greater powers. Second chambers that are directly elected tend to be more powerful, as direct election gives the second chamber additional democratic legitimacy and thus greater political influence, which is true for the five countries with powerful second chambers except for Switzerland, where most but not all members of the second chamber are directly elected. Some less important differences are that the first chamber also tends to be the larger one (with the only exception being the British House of Lords). Terms of office tend to be longer in second chambers, and second chambers tend to have staggered elections. One of the most important differences is that second chambers are often designed to overrepresent certain minorities, the most common example being the overrepresentation of regions with smaller populations, as seen in federalism. In this table you can see the degree to which different countries overrepresent the smaller regions. The three countries with the greatest degree of overrepresentation of smaller regions are Argentina, the United States, and Switzerland. These are also countries where all regions have equal representation in the second chamber regardless of population size. The same is true of Australia, which ranks 5th on the chart. In the United States, a staggering 10% of the best represented voters control 39.7% of the seats in the Senate. Other countries like Germany and Canada give greater, but not equal, representation to smaller regions, while Belgium gives only slight overrepresentation to its French and German-speaking minorities. In the United States the second chamber has some unique powers, such as ratifying treaties and confirming members of the federal judiciary, that the first chamber does not have. This, combined with the Supreme Court being one of the most powerful activist courts in the world, has produced an unusual situation where a minority controls an arguably more powerful second chamber. And the situation is only getting worse: by 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by only 30% of the Senate. Having a bicameral legislature with special representation for smaller regions is an important guarantor of federalism, but as we can see from other countries like Canada, Australia, and Germany, the amount of overrepresentation seen in the United States is not necessary to maintain a strong form of federalism. Only time will tell whether the United States can maintain a stable and legitimate government in a state of continually strengthening minority rule.
The most rigid constitution in the world
A rigid federal constitution is another important guarantor of federalism, and the United States has the least flexible constitution in the world, with two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate as well as the approval of 3/4ths of the states being required to pass a constitutional amendment. There are several other countries where supermajorities are required, as you can see in this table, but not to the same degree as in the United States. It is one of the reasons the United States has the shortest written constitution in the world at 4,400 words, despite being one of the oldest constitutions. Having a constitution is not itself enough to guarantee federalism, an institution is also needed to defend the constitution. Independent courts with the power of judicial review fulfill that purpose, and the United States has one of the most vigorous federal courts, as you can see in this table. The German Constitutional Court arguably ranks in second place. Judicial review is particularly strong in several other countries besides the USA and Germany: India, and recently, Canada, Costa Rica, and Argentina. When it comes to the United States, Lijphart notes that, “The activist American courts and the Supreme Court in particular have been accused of forming an ‘imperial judiciary.’” A rigid constitution and the courts with independent review to back it up are an important anti-majoritarian device, while having a flexible constitution and no judicial review allow unrestricted majority rule. The UK is a prime example of majority rule, and is also one of only 3 democracies of Lijphart’s 36 with no written constitution, the other 2 being New Zealand and Israel. Switzerland is an odd outlier, being an otherwise completely consensual democracy with no judicial review, despite having a strong form of federalism. Perhaps this demonstrates that judicial review is helpful, but not essential, to maintaining federalism.
The paradox of the US Supreme Court
As explained in the last section, activist courts with the power of judicial review are an anti-majoritarian device, but the US Supreme Court is majoritarian in its makeup in almost every respect, in contrast to the German Constitutional Court and the Indian Supreme Court which follow a more consensual pattern. One example of the Supreme Court’s majoritarianism is its small number of justices, only 9, compared with 16 in Germany and 29 in India. This places a hard limit on the amount of broad representation of different population groups on the Supreme Court. A second majoritarian aspect is that justices are chosen by majority in the Senate, unlike the two-thirds majorities required in both German chambers. The court itself makes decisions by majority, which increases the power of the court to make decisions, but decreases the consensual nature of the decision-making. There are a couple more reasons the Supreme Court is majoritarian in its makeup: one is that vacancies are filled as they occur, allowing majorities to sequentially pick their favorites, whereas if justices were chosen as a group it would be more likely for minorities to be chosen. A second reason is that US justices have very long terms, which tends to be an obstacle to broad representation in an evolving society. In Germany and India, justices have mandatory retirement ages of 68 and 65, respectively, and in Germany they are chosen to 12 year non-renewable terms. This paradox of a consensual institution with majoritarian rules is seen not only in the Supreme Court, but in many other institutions of American democracy. The presidency, for example, represents a division of power between the executive and legislative, an expression of divided-power, while the presidency itself, a single person elected by majority, is the antithesis of consensus decision making.
One of the most independent central banks… at least until the 90’s.
Central banks are crucial policy-making institutions, particularly when they are strong and independent. Having a strong and independent central bank is an important aspect of the divided-power approach to building a consensus democracy (recall that an independent central bank is one of the five divided-power institutions enumerated above). The most important duty of central banks is making monetary policy – the regulation of interest rates and the supply of money, which in turn has effects on price stability, inflation, unemployment, economic growth, and the business cycle. According to the Cukierman Index of Independence, central banks are at their most independent when they have exclusive jurisdiction over monetary policy and their only or primary task is to maintain price stability. Central banks may be less strong when they have multiple, possibly conflicting goals, such as both price stability and full employment. Other important aspects of bank independence are the independence of the bank’s governor from the executive, and when the bank is in full control of the terms of lending to the central government. Until around 1994, central bank independence was strongly correlated with federalism, another important divided-power institution, and the five central banks with the greatest independence were all federal systems: Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Austria, and Canada. As you can see in this table (continued here), these five banks reigned supreme as the most independent central banks in the world for 50 years, from 1945 to 1994. After 1994, many European central banks became remarkably more independent as a condition for participating in the euro, per the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, for example the Spanish, French, and Italian central banks which all increased by approximately .5 on the Cukierman Index in 1994, easily surpassing the United States. The establishment of the European Central Bank in 1998 and the adoption of the euro transformed the central bank for those countries into an element of the international system. After that, the correlation between federalism and central bank independence shrank considerably, as the central bank was no longer a domestic institution, following the same divided-power approach as the rest of the domestic government. The United States, in contrast, has remained completely static from 1945 until the present day, with a Cukierman Index of .56, putting it in 17th place among Lijphart’s 36 major democracies as of 2010. It’s beyond the scope of Lijphart’s book, and my own expertise, to say whether this has had any effect on economic growth or the ability of the Federal Reserve to maintain price stability, compared to EU countries.
Categorizing democracies using joint-power and divided-power
I want to talk about how majoritarian and consensus democracies perform in practice in the next section, but first, I would be amiss if I didn’t mention what Liphart describes as “one of the most important general findings of this book”, which is that the five variables representing divided-power tend to be clustered with one another, and also the five variables representing joint-power tend to be clustered with one another. For example, democracies which are federalist also tend to have bicameralism, constitutional rigidity, judicial review, and central bank independence (that last one only prior to 1994), all examples of divided-power institutions. Likewise, democracies with a lower percentage of minimal winning one-party cabinets also tend to have more political parties, less executive dominance, more proportional election systems, and greater interest group pluralism, all important divided-power institutions. Take a look at this factor analysis for a more precise picture. The numbers may be thought of as the correlation coefficient between the variable and factor 1 and 2, which represent joint-power and divided-power, respectively. Meanwhile, between the two approaches, joint-power and divided-power, there is very little correlation, for example federalism is not well correlated with the number of political parties. The United States is a perfect example of mixing the two approaches, as it closely adheres to the divided-power approach, while rejecting joint-power. These correlations are of immense interest to comparative political scientists, because it represents a useful way to categorize democracies along two dimensions. How is it that democracies end up embracing either of the two approaches? Taking another look at the conceptual map, one of the most striking patterns is that countries on the right side, the non-joint-power side, tend to be former British colonies, with some exceptions such as Argentina, Costa Rica, Greece, Spain, South Korea, and France. As Lijphart notes: “France is an especially interesting exceptional case: in view of French president de Gaulle’s deeply felt and frequently expressed antagonism towards les anglo-saxons, it is ironic that the republic he created is the most Anglo-Saxon of any of the continental European democracies.” The left side of the map, in contrast, includes most of the continental European democracies, and all five of the Nordic countries, which have a common Scandinavian cultural heritage of consensus decision making and arbitration. There are some exceptions on the left side as well (the joint-power side): Ireland, India, Israel, and Mauritius all were formerly under British colonial rule, the difference is that these are highly plural societies, where majoritarianism and its associated non-joint-power approach just do not work well in practice, often leading to sectarian violence, as I explained in the first post. What about the divided-power approach, signified by the bottom of the conceptual map? As explained earlier in this post, the size of the country (both in terms of population and geographic size), as well as diversity, are significantly correlated with the divided-power approach. In other words, the countries embracing divided-power tend to be larger and more diverse.
Wrapping up: majoritarian vs. consensus democracy
So how do majoritarian and consensus democracies stack up in practice? The conventional wisdom is that majoritarian democracies are less representative of the population, but are more decisive, and therefore better at governing effectively. Lijphart argues that faster decisions are not always wiser decisions, in fact the opposite is often true, and policies that are supported by broad consensus are more likely to be successfully implemented. He also observes that non-joint-power democracies like the United States have the disadvantage of frequently flip-flopping between contrasting policies whenever government control changes hands from one party to the other. Lijphart runs a regression on 17 indicators of government performance, such as government effectiveness, rule of law, and control of corruption, and finds that the joint-power approach is favorably correlated to a statistically significant degree with 9 out of 17 of them, while non-joint-power is only correlated with economic growth, but not to a statistically significant degree. In general, all of the correlations with economic variables are weak, such as with unemployment, budget balance, and economic freedom. Divided-power, meanwhile, has such weak correlations with all of the government performance variables that no firm conclusions can be drawn. Lijphart concludes that while joint-power democracies are not necessarily proven better than majoritarian democracies at all aspects of governing, they are almost certainly not worse, as the conventional wisdom goes, and along many aspects they are significantly better. One major exception is that when it comes to the control of violence, joint-power is very strongly correlated with a lower degree of violence, an intuitive result considering the discussion in my first post of the incompatibility between majoritarianism and diverse societies, as exemplified by Northern Ireland.
Consensus democracy: the “kinder, gentler” democracy
Consensus democracies may not always be superior decision makers, but Lijphart is able to draw other conclusions on the tendencies of joint-power democracies, but not so much on divided-power. He finds that joint-power democracies are more likely to be welfare states, have a better record of protecting the environment, put fewer people in prison and are less likely to have the death penalty, and are more generous with economic assistance to developing nations. When it comes to putting people in prison, the United States is such an extreme outlier among other democracies that Lijphart found it necessary to remove it from the analysis, but still, the effect of joint-power on incarceration rates was strongly negative and statistically significant. The USA has 743 prisoners per hundred thousand people, twice as many as the next democracy in Lijphart’s analysis, the Bahamas. Even extending the analysis to non-democracies, the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with either Russia or China in second place, depending on the survey. When it comes to government effectiveness and “kinder, gentler” policies in general, the problem with all of these correlations, as Lijphart points out, is that culture may be a confounding variable, and “consensus democracy may not be able to take root and thrive unless it is supported by a consensual political culture.” But he offers hope that the cause-and-effect may go both ways: consensual democratic institutions may have the effect of making an adversarial political culture more consensual. Switzerland and Austria have not always had a consensual culture, their histories being marked by violent strife, while today Belgium, India, and Israel have adversarial cultures and consensual institutions. One hopes that over time those country’s institutions will have a positive effect on their contentious political cultures.
Where does the United States go from here?
The bad news is that the United States is probably not going to change one bit along the joint-power and divided-power dimensions. Some few countries have made a move towards federalism over time, and even more rarely a handful of countries such as New Zealand have moved towards proportional representation and a joint-power approach, but in general all democracies have been extremely stable along the joint-power and divided-power dimensions from 1945 to 2010, especially the United States, with its exceptionally rigid constitution. The bottom line: if you’re an American looking for a relatively “kinder, gentler” democracy with more proportional political representation, your best bet is to pack your bags. However, if you are ever in the extraordinary position of framing a new constitution or amending one, my advice is to learn from our experience and the experience of other democracies around the world: avoid presidentialism like the plague, embrace the parliamentary system, and adopt a proportional electoral system. This advice is doubly important for highly diverse societies, where majoritarianism (particularly of the non-joint-power variety) frequently leads to violence.
"Why did Sweden Support The Vietcong" By History Matters
So this 3 and a half minute video is about as misleading and inaccurate as you expect. How? Well, let's explore nitpick the hell out of this video. 0:00
When most people think of the Vietcong and their allies, Sweden doesn't make the list
Okay, well. This video off the bat conflates the "Vietcong" with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. They're completely different entities, for instance, the DRV (September 2nd, 1945) predates the VC (December 20th, 1960) by over 15 years. Often in American memory, the Viet Cong were the primary antagonists and were the main adversary that American troops would come across until 1968. American memory tends to conflate Vietcong with North Vietnam, which is a very slanted and American centric view that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. To claim that the Vietcong were interchangeable with North Vietnam boils the North down to a seemingly rag tag insurgency rather than a legitimate political entity. It should be stated that as seen later in this list, Sweden didn't "ally" itself with the DRV or Vietcong. Semantic in the context of this video? I guess, but its an important distinction. A large debate actually is present in some discussions of the war on how and even if the NLF were a creation of North Vietnam (US assertion) or that it was a largely self-sufficient nationalist movement within the people of South Vietnam (Vietnamese assertion). I believe the former is very evident but this is worth mentioning. The Vietcong were also a front organization, nominally a larger umbrella movement of various nationalists with a command "core" of communist leaders. This is the same case as the Vietminh as evidenced by being able to see a lot of South Vietnamese officials/officers who were Vietminh earlier in their careers. The Vietnam War is largely a war of decolonization and independence for the broader Vietnamese perspective, not as ideological to the extent the United States believed. Hence, these terms are not changeable politically nor are they in any historical sense. 0:10
So why, why did Sweden side with the Vietcong?
This is actually "debunked" seconds later where he states they were part of a mediated non-aligned movement against the war. Recognition wise, Sweden didn't formally recognize Vietnam until 1969 which was nearly 24 years after Vietnam's Declaration of Independence on September 2nd, 1945. Sweden was far from the only country to be a part of this movement, diplomacy moved greatly through a great host of countries during the course of American involvement. 0:36
The war had two phases, the first when the French colonial overlords of this area called "French Indochina" fought to quell a rebellion against its rule.
To call it phases of one singular war is somewhat problematic though that is an issue of categorization. A larger issue of this is calling the Franco-Vietminh War a "rebellion against French rule". To classify this war as a rebellion is very loaded, as it does not recognize by default that France had lost control of "Indochina" and had to negotiate with the Vietminh as a legitimate political entity. France also granted varying degrees of independence to Ho Chi Minh and infamously Bao Dai, not very characteristic of a rebellion unless you are operating under the inference that this territory was rightly controlled by France. The reassertion of complete colonial control also began to fall by the wayside in the late 1940s and France began to settle for an "associated state" of the French Union. This war is arguably *the most important years of the Vietnam War, how this is said matters. * 0:44
Now at first the USA wasn't too fussed about this since it had no desire to preserve old European empires
This is true, though misleading especially without qualification. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was notoriously anti-colonial, the defeats of France in 1940 sealed his opinion of France as a dying empire. He believed that imperialism and colonial squabbles helped kick off WW2, pushing through the Atlantic Charter to Churchill's chagrin and a sidelined France. This document and the independence of the Philippines later in 1946 helped cement the reputation of the United States as a guarantor of colonial freedoms. However, the Atlantic Charter was non-binding and many interpreted it as a right of self-determination to territories held by Germany and Japan. Truman also did not want to be mired in colonial squabbles, though the Cold War has taken precedence in American foreign policy in 1947 with the Truman Doctrine. In 1949 after years of an escalating quagmire, France proposed a "Bao Dai Solution" which postulated Bao Dai as an independent (so much for the colony!) and non-communist alternative to Vietnam, offering more independence to Bao Dai than Ho Chi Minh ever asked for a few years earlier. This solution began the long tale of US interventionism as the conflict due to its ever-increasing nature brought the conflict slowly away from a colonial reassertion but rather a fight against communism. The French marketed this as "fighting another front in the war against communism" but against China and later Korea. It should be noted the French were very wary of the Americans coming in as they saw America as trying to encroach on their interests and a fierce rivalry brewed during the war. In 1950, everything changed in regard to French Indochina. The Korean War had kicked off and Communism looked as scary as ever, the US began to see France's assertion of fighting a war against communism on another front, which was a bit disingenuous by the French. It is also around this time that Ho Chi Minh's diplomatic options were limited and he turned to the very reluctant China and USSR who gave tepid support, though gaining in China after Korea. Internal US policy around this time began to become extremely hawkish at the advent of the Korean War. The State Department had largely purged itself of its left-leaning "Orientalist" experts in favor of European experts who were more conservative and hardline, seeking a more proactive approach to communism in Asia. Instead of relieving the forces at Bien Dien Phu (which would include a B-52 bombing campaign and even possibly strategic nuclear weapons) America felt the French were due to fall and that the US could take over the effort against communism. It is a common myth that America didn't care about Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the US had a stake in it as early as 1947. While they were very careful about not appearing to help a colonial war, America from 1950-1954 was already knee-deep in Vietnam with a lot of motivation to be there. Over the course of the war, America was largely bankrolling the French Military in Vietnam and had spent over 10 billion dollars (see Appendix 1) while bankrolling up to 80% of the entire French war effort (page 63). 0:50
In peace talks, it was divided into 2 states. North Vietnam was under the control of communists and they wanted the South too.
We can debate how truly committed to communism the DRV was at this time, though this phrasing points to North Vietnam as an aggressor for a land grab against a just partition. The Geneva Accords in 1954 were a massive defeat for DRV, who had wanted and expected full independence but were blocked by efforts from the US to shore up an anti-communist ally. According to the Geneva Accords, there would be no military presence or alliances and eventual nationwide elections for reunification. It was largely understood that the North (22 million population) which was a Vietminh stronghold would win nationwide elections coming off of their stunning nationalist victory against the French at Bien Dien Phu against the South (16 million population). There was a mad dash of refugees and moving about at this time including reprisals on both sides (which were against terms). The US-backed Ngo Dinh Diem factions of the Vietnamese National Army won out for control over the French-backed Binh Xuyen VNA factions. Elections of dubious quality were had in South Vietnam resulting in a Diem regime and any elections were tabled, sending Vietnam on a crash course to war. The point of contention here is that the war did not happen because "The North wanted the South", the division was slapdash and there were very few chances of this partition working out as it was written from the get-go. 1:00
Domino theory dictates that all instances of a communist government must be stopped lest the entire world fall to it
I think he's mixing up the Truman Doctrine which stipulated military aid for any country battling communism (Greece and Turkey) in 1947 with Eisenhower's Domino Theory which stipulated the consequences of failing the policy of containment. There were other reasons for the Vietnam War (like, a lot) but this explanation is fine in and of itself as the most common "reason". So, I bet you're like shit all of this is already just a minute in. I can't read all of this! Well, you're in luck because most of my gripes were with the first minute of this video, I know less about the politics of Sweden so I can be briefer. 1:57
Now Palmer wasn't a communist or anything which was driven by fierce anti-war ideology
He's mostly correct but one has to point out that Sweden was one among many to join the non-aligned movement. This was a coalition of many governments who didn't expressly support either superpower as an attempt to thaw the cold war, this was a large movement and Sweden was hardly unique in this regard. While Swedish was not Marxist by any means, instead forming their trademark Social Democracy there is somewhat of a political affinity there that underpins the cold war divide. 2:05
Palme instead elected to give direct aid to the Viet Cong
Again, the Vietcong and North Vietnam are not the same. 2:18
Asylum to American draft dodgers, medical supplies, and doctors
This is hardly "helping the Vietcong" as much as standard aid for an ailing country in line with what a non-aligned country. This is not siding with the "Vietcong", nor is it allying with them or even arguably helping them. It should be mentioned that by this point in time the NLF had largely been decimated by the Tet Offensive and the NVA had already largely taken over coinciding with American "Vietnamization" and eventual withdrawal. Again, it's playing with dates here because it is not specific when this happened but it would likely have its bulk be in the early 1970s considering Sweden formally recognized DRV in 1969. 2:40
This was largely done from a position of pacifism
This kinda undermines a lot of what this video is actually arguing. The non-aligned movement is also not synonymous with pacifism. 2:47
Sweden supported the "Vietcong" because it would support anyone in this same situation against any other great power
I'm somewhat nitpicking (as I have this whole post) but this is a pretty sweeping blanket unfalsifiable statement that is too broad to really make as a case, especially as arguably the entire conclusion of your video. Again this is a bit nitpicking the wording here. While this video was intending to be a quick summary of the Vietnam War and Sweden's role, the premise of a lot of the claims are misleading or overly simplistic. This is, of course, is to be expected especially with a 1-minute summary which will always be simplified, but the summary was quite bad and I hope to bust some common myths I believe the video is drawing on. What really brought this video to my eye was the weird use of Vietcong as well as the framing of Vietnam from 1945-1956 as one that was heavily biased, laden with misconceptions, and more simple than it ever had to be. I realize I might be nitpicking this too much as its a 3 minute and 30-second video on the war and some diplomacy, if so I would like to hear your thoughts. I am also not an expert on this topic (especially Sweden) so any additions or criticism are welcome. I largely did this video to just help my understanding of the topic.
The following 741 individuals all actively and knowingly conspire in well-planned efforts and constructions to consolidate power and resources. Round-op Alpha
Removed comments/submissions for /u/Completely_Broke
Hi Completely_Broke, you're not shadowbanned, but 44 of your most recent 109 comments/submissions were removed (either automatically or by human moderators).
Comments:
g2drmgq in JusticeServed on 22 Aug 20 (1pts):
it's sad to be an atheist. you actually believe this guy will never be punished
g2dgld7 in europe on 21 Aug 20 (1pts):
1 Army = New World Order
g2bsxfm in MedicalGore on 21 Aug 20 (1pts):
Do Asian surgeons use chopsticks ?
g2bankd in MedicalGore on 21 Aug 20 (1pts):
How much did he save by changing the brakes himself ? How much did he pay for the hospital ?
g2b9up6 in worldnews on 21 Aug 20 (1pts):
USA stealing resources ? No way ! That's americanophobia !
g29xvv8 in europe on 21 Aug 20 (1pts):
I mean, if you really want to play that game we can glass Turkey off the surface of the earth.
As usual French hypocrites calling for the undiscriminate killing of civilians aka terrorism while...
g29ws8b in europe on 21 Aug 20 (1pts):
The French will surrender before the 5 minutes.
g29v8ce in europe on 21 Aug 20 (1pts):
The only delusional Turks are those who hope Europeans will accept them as one of their own after rejecting Islam. They'll never accept you, just look at this subreddit. You're only hurting yourself.
g29sbxy in MorbidReality on 20 Aug 20 (1pts):
bet his mom would even forgive him. what a sack of shit
g29r56b in europe on 20 Aug 20 (1pts):
I know why Micron has a hard on with Greece. He loves greek sausages if you catch my drift.
g29q16e in europe on 20 Aug 20 (1pts):
France has only power against third world countries with sticks and stones. Always has been a nation of cowards. Try doing this with Russia or China.
g29o91f in europe on 20 Aug 20 (1pts):
That effeminate guy was groomed by his female pedophile teacher.
g29n4lj in europe on 20 Aug 20 (1pts):
one of the worst regimes in the world
USA is the worst regime in the world
g28xfuu in DelphiMurders on 20 Aug 20 (1pts):
Good ideas!
g278akp in PublicFreakout on 20 Aug 20 (1pts):
bunch of idol worshippers that flag was like their golden calf
g25klib in DelphiMurders on 19 Aug 20 (1pts):
84.73% of statistics are made up
g24vo37 in europe on 19 Aug 20 (1pts):
God thing the EU doesn't even recognize European citizen's election results : example 2005 referendum...
g24qb4p in DelphiMurders on 19 Aug 20 (1pts):
Here's how I see things. It's actually a double edged sword. Not releasing info to weed out false confessions is a good thing when you have a huge amount of confessions. Let's say 100 people are...
g245o2f in Botchedsurgeries on 19 Aug 20 (1pts):
if the balls aren't touching
g23a95q in Botchedsurgeries on 19 Aug 20 (1pts):
it makes a whistle noise
g239dt2 in MedicalGore on 19 Aug 20 (1pts):
blood spaghettis
g238gph in mixedrace on 19 Aug 20 (-2pts):
Moroccans are not Arab, they're Amazigh or Arabized. Just shows you don't even know who you really are.
g1z0vm1 in europe on 18 Aug 20 (1pts):
Incredible... now even boats leave the flag color trail behind them !
g1xell8 in JusticeServed on 17 Aug 20 (1pts):
way too merciful
g1xamqk in MedicalGore on 17 Aug 20 (1pts):
if you don't count the fucking tumor in the middle of it yeah
g1x98d3 in MedicalGore on 17 Aug 20 (1pts):
maybe they don't want to be sued 15 years later when that pain is a distant memory and you want a child
g1x81p6 in MorbidReality on 17 Aug 20 (1pts):
everyone dies, at least the bear didn't spent the rest of his life disfigured. I's say the bear won
g1wtdb4 in MedicalGore on 17 Aug 20 (1pts):
Well sometimes it's hard
oh my
g1vzjfb in JusticeServed on 17 Aug 20 (1pts):
how is removing natural teeth making it stronger ?
g1s9w9a in PublicFreakout on 16 Aug 20 (1pts):
This guy is actually the least harmful. The bad ones are in positions of power, with a good job and well integrated to society. They don't use racial slurs in public, they just shoot you, refuse to...
g1s383y in nextfuckinglevel on 16 Aug 20 (1pts):
so he knew it would end like this and sacrified this baby for the video ?
g1rg119 in nextfuckinglevel on 16 Aug 20 (1pts):
Italians would ruin the battery in 10 minutes
g1qyrac in PublicFreakout on 16 Aug 20 (1pts):
If you are Christian or Jewish, you can't criticize her as Abraham did the same thing in the Bible
g1qb5qd in nextfuckinglevel on 16 Aug 20 (1pts):
Mossad 9/11/2001
g1nvo26 in worldnews on 15 Aug 20 (1pts):
Genocide and ethnic cleansing for $9.99 !
g1lg3zd in geopolitics on 15 Aug 20 (1pts):
It's only piracy when Somalians threaten with AKs, when Americans threaten with tomahawks, it's called sanctions.
g1kwelr in MadeleineMccann on 15 Aug 20 (1pts):
i've never understood how can a cadaver dog smell someone who has been dead for a dozen of minutes ? your body doesn't start decomposing after a few minutes... same thing about Chris Watts murders,...
g1klmix in worldnews on 15 Aug 20 (1pts):
Why should Turkey pay for the fuckups of France, UK, USA ? You destroyed their countries, you deal with the refugees.
g1k7cz2 in worldnews on 15 Aug 20 (1pts):
Yeah Europeans who divided the Middle-East with Sikes-Picot ignoring the ethnic partition and Amercians who funded Al-Nosra rebels and destroyed Iraq and used Kurds against Arabs only to betray them...
Submissions:
ibr4bg in Truckers on 18 Aug 20 (1pts):
How much money does a trucker make ?
ibpvux in AskWomen on 17 Aug 20 (1pts):
Why do so many women care so much about having a perfect skin but at the same time there's this stereotype that women really dig scars ?
ibmwz4 in AskReddit on 17 Aug 20 (1pts):
Are scars really cool and do chicks really dig scars or do people say that to make people feel better ? [Serious]
Homusubi Analyses All 116 Primaries (AKA the long post), Part 1: Europe and Africa
A few people have gone through all sixty-one voting districts and made their endorsements public, but nobody, so far, has aped the legendary Lacsirax Long Post from the previous season and gone through every vote, even if next week is now primaries-only week. I don't know what possessed me to go through every primary, especially seeing as there are (by my count) one hundred and sixteen of them (yes, there will be over a hundred votes next week), Let me know if I've missed someone and if there's a primary that I haven't realised is happening. It is equally possible that I've identified a primary that actually won't happen, because the rules for what does and doesn't go into a primary are a bit different from last time (plus, there are more civs). So, for example, I already know that Nasser (modern Egypt) isn't going into the ancient Egypt primary despite having the same five-letter civ name, instead progressing directly to the general. I reserve the right to change these endorsements if more evidence comes about, especially in the field of AI tests, but I'll be transparent about it if I do (I'll use strikethroughs and so on on my edits instead of just editing things out that turned out to be wrong). Here goes. DISTRICT 1 ICELAND Our first vote is one with a repeat in it, and as you will soon find out, I'm not that keen on repeats. Ingolfur's Iceland, at least, was one of the more entertaining civs in Mk2, though, and made the very most it could out of a frankly terrible TSL. Therefore, unlike other primaries featuring repeats, I won't judge you if you vote for Ingolfur. Nonetheless, I'll be voting for Kristjan Eldjarn, a civilisation from the Cod Wars (no, not Call of Duty, I mean an actual war over the actual fish) with nicely fishy uniques to match. SCOTLAND The best Scotland mod is Alba under Alexander III, no question about it. Its uniques are pretty good, with plenty of passive production and naval bonuses that sound useful in a Royale, but what's more, it has input from our resident Scottish power ranker Lordie, and also has an absolutely beautiful colour scheme. AI-wise, it performed semi-decently in the Elimi-Nation AI game before getting voted out in favour of Northern Ireland. The only catch is that Alba might not be in the Scotland primary in the first place due to its separate name. In that case, of the two James VI's, I would recommend voting for LastSword's James, as I've seen the JFD one plenty of times in AI games and it has never impressed me. DISTRICT 2 IRELAND Ireland has got far more interesting since the S1 vote, in which there were only two options - contemporaries of each other - and one was disqualified for being in Mk2. We now have four, more diverse, Irelands. I'm not particularly thrilled at the thought of Malachy again or Brian Boru, not least because they didn't actually rule all Ireland even though they claimed to (afaik). Daniel O'Connell is a more interesting choice, an influential politician who never actually ruled Ireland but secured greatly expanded rights for his people, and is also a rather nice shade of blue. However, his AI is pretty lacklustre, which leaves us with Easter Rising hero Michael Collins and his pub UB (not kidding). None of these leaders achieved lasting Irish Unity as some might claim, but either way, I'm voting for Mick. CORNWALL I'm quite fond of Hiram's mods. We started modding at around the same time as each other, after all, and it took ages for either of us to learn Lua. Having said that, I don't think I can back him here. His Cornwall, nice colours notwithstanding, is a fairly awkward mixture of uniques that includes a rather incongruous vanilla Celtic UA. Therefore, I'm going for Senshi's Gwendolen, which includes both a rare female leader and plenty of well-integrated tin mine mechanics. LONDON PRIMARY (UK/BRITAIN/ENGLAND) My current home region and one of four primaries in which I am fielding a mod. No surprises, then, that I am giving my endorsement here to the wonderful Clement Attlee, living proof that sometimes it's best not to have a strong leader so much as a good one. His historical record and general status as an oddball choice for a Royale leader would make for a decent reason to endorse him on its own, but his AI is at least decent and his uniques are more relevant to a Royale setting than their peaceful economic nature may suggest at first - including a way to use all that gold. If for some reason you hate Attlee and would rather have a more Conservative choice here, I recommend Theresa May, who is in every way the Millard Fillmore of the Isles. WALES I am very much struggling to see the difference between the two Waleses, other than slightly more Welsh language used in Glyndwr's unique names than Llywelyn's (which must surely be a good thing). Civ AI Games's archive suggests that Llywelyn has the better AI, though, so I guess I'd go with him. DISTRICT 3 DENMARK The AI record of the Denmarks does not show any mention of a universally strong or weak variant, so let's go with history and all the other factors. I'm not the biggest fan of vanilla civs, so I'd rather not vote for vanilla Harald here despite their nice colours, so I'm going to go with Struensee, mainly because he's (imho) a more interesting historical figure than the other two; a doctor who was able to seize unofficial power in Denmark for a time, rather than 'just another monarch'. NORWAY The mod I've been working on recently has been quite close to Norway and includes quite a few references to it. Over the course of my research, I've encountered both Olaf II and Haakon VII, and I can think of worse leaders than both. Haakon IV, Mk2's Snoreway, is not really an experience I'd like to go back to. Of the other two, though, Olaf II edges it for me, although I'll be honest, most of that is voting for the modder. In this case, Lungora, best known as the creator of the maps on which the Royales are run. SWEDEN Back to politics on this one. Although he does not yet have an AI record that I know of, I'll most likely be voting for Olof Palme here, and hoping that whenever another civ does badly at something, I can do what I normally do and unfavourably compare them to the Swedes. Also, the last time we had a late-20th-century Scandinavian politician leader, it was brilliant. My second and third choices, and my recommendations for an older Sweden, are Karl XII and Birger Jarl, both of whom have excelled themselves in past AI games. DISTRICT 4 PORTUGAL How am I to know which Portugal to vote for? There are eight of 'em, and most of share about three names between them! Five of them have unfavourable comments in the CAG archive, leaving me with a choice of Afonso de Albuquerque, Antonia Salazar, and LS's Maria. The latter is city-state based, Salazar depends on whether you like dictators or not, and Afonso seems like a fun civ but not an easy one for the AI to use... y'know what, stuff this, vote for Firaxis's Maria aka the Mad from Mk2. Because why not. SPAIN Carlos III is the only Spain which has been campaigned for so far, and is also the only one of the earlier Spains not to have a leader which I've already grown bored of from either Civ 5 or Civ 6. However, RanseStoddard's analysis of AI values suggests that it might not be that good, which would leave us with General Franco. Personally, I'd vote for Carlos, but vote for Franco if you will. Just make sure not to vote for any Spain in the general, because #NeverSpain is way too entertaining to abandon now. DISTRICT 5 BELGIUM Leopold II is my choice here, for two reasons. One, because it has had a better AI record than Albert, for a civ which I particularly want to see competitive in the general for the 5th district. Two, because not every mod has the balls to reference Congolese atrocities and chocolate-making in the same set of uniques. You do you, Leo. BRITTANY This might be surprising to some, but I'm voting for Anne here. Although Nominoe is a much more polished mod, I haven't seen them do much AI-wise, and their uniques are very much orientated towards human play. So, Gedemo's sole European mod it is. FLANDERS Flanders memeage doesn't really dictate which Flanders it has to be - after all, the name is the important thing, so I doubt that the primary here will get as much attention as the general. The AI record favours LastSword's Flanders (Robert III) over JFD's Flanders (Rorbrecht III) while saying nothing about Moriboe's Flanders (Filips van de Elzas). I don't feel strongly about this primary at all, and it's worth pointing out that Robert might have the ability to polder one or two gulf water tiles with his UI, but at the end of the day, i'll vote for Filips van de Elzas. Modder diversity, and a mod I remember playing with a very long time ago. FRANCE Mon Dieu, fourteen kinds of France? Luckily, not too long ago there was an AI game which was pretty much nothing but Frances. The winner (spoiler alert, sorry) was Louis XI, who immediately rockets up to near the top of my list. The other standout one for me is Clemenceau, who I like mainly because of the weirdly large amount of First World War-era history I've had to study and thus the soft spot I've developed for leaders from that era. However, that's personal, so I feel more inclined to 'endorse' Louis (and his S-tier UA name, The Universal Spider), even if I might give my own vote to Clemenceau SWITZERLAND How are Switzerland mods supposed to fight each other in a primary? They're supposed to be neutral, aren't they? Either way, I'm backing LastSword's Dufour here, because I've seen JFD's plenty of times and its AI has never impressed. DISTRICT 6 BOHEMIA Vaclav (JFD's Bohemia) has a mixed AI record, but perhaps the most relevant one in a crowded European setting is its Groundhog Day performance, which was... not great. Therefore, I'm voting for Charles IV. His uniques sound fun - they'll either doom him completely or win him the game, admittedly most likely the former. CZECHOSLOVAKIA Didn't we already do th... oh wait, Czechoslovakia. Pretty torn on this one, honestly. Both the Uighur and SabyZ versions have good and bad points on their uniques, and the Uighur one has such a mid-tier AI that I can't even predict whether or not Saby's is better or worse. Uighur's is the only one which conforms to orthodox mod structure (Saby's two uniques are a UB and a UI), but I'll probably vote for SabyZ's Czechoslovakia, purely because I like voting for civs made by CBR fans, and Saby made the previous Czechia. GERMANY I want to endorse Merkel. I badly want to endorse Merkel. The trouble is, her uniques make that very hard to do. Her UA is city-state based, and her UU might actually be a debuff for an AI, as she can only use it properly when she purchases it. Her saving grace is the UB, which provides extra production and culture based on events which are common as muck in a Royale. I'm not really feeling it with Wilhelm, despite his WWI connections, because I can't really look at him and think something other than "worse Bismarck". Moving on to actual Bismarck, although the JFD overhaul gives me a way out of voting vanilla, once again, it's city-state based. So I'm back where I started. I'm going to do it. Vote Angela Merkel. Imagine how fun it'd be if she started ruthlessly conquering like mad. LIECHTENSTEIN This one isn't even close. Johann I (QQQ) is one of those very old mods made by one-shot modders which might or might not work. Johann II (DuskJockey), on the other hand, is a very new mod with a creator still hanging around the place, and more complicated uniques to boot. Its AI record is mixed, but you can't have everything. Except when you're voting for Kakuei's Japan, of course. SAXONY This one's a toughie. On one hand, JFD's Saxony makes tourism actually useful, and has a more Saxon colour scheme. On the other, Firebug's mod makes faith useful, by making cities that look as if, were they given time to build up and get a few faith buildings going, they'd be entertainingly hard to capture. I think I'll vote for JFD's Saxony (Frederick Augustus I), though, as Mitteleuropa is not a forgiving region for late-developing civs, and Frederick Augustus I (aka Augustus the Strong) is the more entertaining historical character. DISTRICT 7 GENOA I'm going for LastSword's Genoa here. Why, you ask? Simple. Stronger crossbowmen which can automatically attack when embarked. What with the pivotal importance of the crossbow in many Civ games, and the embarkation-friendly Western Med, that could be a unique that - shock horror - actually does something. ITALY This comes down to whether you want to vote for Mussolini because Mussolini, or vote for not-Mussolini because not-Mussolini. It's a personal choice and not one I want to go into because I'm pretty sick of this argument (I'm not going to be disappointed if either wins by a landslide). However, I did promise I'd endorse someone in every primary. So, on the basis of a slightly better AI record (although both are mid-tier) in a difficult TSL, Victor Emmanuel III it is. PAPAL STATES Unsurprisingly, all three Papal civs are faith-based. The AI record only mentions one of the three, and so a lot of this comes down to who makes the most use of that faith outside of religion. I'm going with Innocent III, partly because his unique Great Generals make faith a bit more useful in military matters, and partly, of course, because he's the Battle Pope with the decidedly non-turtley AI record. Deus Vult and all that! ROME Whoever I pick here, I'm going to make someone angry. So I'll apologise in advance and say that, one, I know embarrassingly little about most of these leaders, and two, my choice isn't based on history. It's JFD's Julius Caesar. This is partly because they have been known to perform very admirably in AI games, unlike most of the other Romes, and partly because their icon and colour combination are very classic Rome and get me into that S.P.Q.R. state of mind more than most of them do. DISTRICT 8 ATHENS Ugh, both of these have bad AI records. MC's Athens has the classic colour scheme and is the one probably more familiar to long-time watchers. LastSword's, however, has the more intriguing uniques, including an interesting degree of freedom when researching techs and Civ 6-style cities that aren't coastal but can still build naval units. So LastSword's Athens it is. AUSTRIA Austria is one of my favourite vanilla civs, but unfortunately, its star attraction has to do with city-states, which don't exist here. A nifty UU that's one of the few to fall in the Enlightenment Era seals the deal for me, then - JFD's Joseph II it is. It's also yellow and black, for all the history nerds frustrated by the constant use of white and red for Austria in everything despite the precedent. BULGARIA Six Bulgarias? Seriously? And quite a few of them have badass UA names to boot. One of them even seems to be led by a Harry Potter character. I'll follow the lead of colour schemes, very snowbally-sounding UAs, and endorsements from ExplosiveWatermelon, and pick Ferdinand I, but this is not a primary I'm sure about my choices in at all. GREECE I'm not sure whether or not this primary is going to happen, as one civ is vanilla Greece and the other is an early 20th-century modern Greece. If it does come to this, though, despite their moderate AI record and very peaceful unique set, I'll be rooting for Eleftherios Venizelos, purely because a modern and real-life Greek hero makes a nice change sometimes from most of the civs in this region. HUNGARY Another primary in which the AI record becomes king for my decision - my Hungarian friend's favourite leader doesn't have a mod, if I recall correctly - and it's driving me towards Miklos Horthy. The three other Hungaries, which also have less militaristic uniques. The AI record says negative things about three of the civs here, see, and the fourth one is Horthy, who has performed well in Elimi-Nation so far. Another vote for a rather different Mi(c)k to the last one. ROMANIA I don't know that much about the Balkans, OK? Please stop throwing primaries at me. Another AI one, then, I guess. Carol I has been entertaining - sometimes successful, sometimes not, but never sleepy - in AI games in the past, so I'm leaning towards him. But again, don't take my word as gospel here, especially seeing as DJSHenninger's Mihai Viteazul has the wonderful UA name The Eagle, Aurochs, and Seven Hills. That's right up there with One Million Elephants and a White Parasol (that's Laos) for the "Best UA Names Involving Random Animals and Objects" competition. SERBIA Another AI-performance process of elimination jobby here. Stefan Dusan (Discord emoji loyalty) and Peter I Karadjordjevic (WWI character loyalty) are both net positives for a Serbia civ imho, but this is another example of a civ being beset with bad AI records. The exception, with no record whatsoever, is DJSHenninger's Peter, whom I thus reluctantly endorse. THEBES I'm backing LastSword's Thebes here, despite it having the worse colour scheme by some distance. Firebug's uniques, while easier to understand than the competition, are CS-based, and what is more, their performance in Elimi-Nation was decidedly mediocre. WALLACHIA The EU4 fans' favourite and home to Dracula, Wallachia has two leaders and three mods to choose from. None of them have a good AI record, other than the mystery Mircea Wallachia with no record, but you can't not vote for Vlad in Wallachia. So of the two we're left with, I'm going with DJSHenninger's Vlad, with its unusual light-green-on-black colour scheme and steamrolly UA with the potential to make enemies adjacent to the vampire army 25 percent weaker by the end of the game. YUGOSLAVIA I'm voting for Tito here. It's mainly because I find him to be a more interesting figure than yet another Peter, and because the Non-Aligned Movement is criminally underrated. Don't worry too much about the UA being city-state based, as his UU and UB do not mention them. Seriously though, why would you want a Yugoslavia that isn't Tito? DISTRICT 9 LITHUANIA Before I start this write-up, I would like to thank the people of Lithuania for looking at the countries to their south and west, seeing a veritable sea of Peters and Stephens with numbers after their names, and deciding, no, we're giving our monarchs uniquely Lithuanian-sounding names and not repeating them. Anyway, AI. Gediminas's Lithuania seems to have a consistent record of starting out strong but collapsing, so take from that what you will. Vytautas is a unique sort of civ that benefits from having no religions (presumably a reference to Lithuania's unusually long history of paganism) and no city connections. Last but not least is Mindaugas, who doesn't seem to do much with his uniques if he isn't lucky enough to get a religion, so I'm not particularly confident. I think I'll just go with Gediminas. It's the Lithuania we all know and love by now, and at least it tries hard. POLAND Twelve! Twelve Polands! Much of this is thanks to the (elected) monarch of this part of the world, LastSword, who has eight Polands under his belt. I know that a fair few people are taking my lead on Japanese affairs, and, grateful for that as I am, it seems only fair to return the favour for other modders with a clear 'capital' to their mod empire. So that's Pilsudski out, despite his being an interesting and impressive historical figure. It has to be an LS Poland. Put all eight above the rest - this is a joint endorsement. As for which one to put first, there was an AI Game of Polands ages ago, but the winner... um, wasn't a Poland. The only one recorded as being a dominant power is John III Sobiesko, a vaguely sciencey cavalry civ. The other two I would prioritise are Sigismund III, the sole blue Poland, whose laissez-faire management promoting UA gives literally free happiness when it's being played by an AI, and which also gets stronger ranged attacks from cities; and Stephen Bathory, who inherits vanilla Poland's strong UA and has strong-sounding musketman and zoo replacements. DISTRICT 10 FINLAND I loved Top Kek, but especially seeing as I have already endorsed Olof Palme in Sweden, I wonder if it's time to let the other Finland shine. Mannerheim, hero of the Winter War, makes culture useful in war with unique promotions, and also has a sauna as a UB in true Finnish fashion, which automatically heals all your units trained in a Sauna city every turn. Honestly, even writing this has made me more enthusiastic about Finland, Monty Python/Scandinavia and the World references and all. RUSSIA (ST PETERSBURG) Especially if you discount the boring Civ 5/6 leader choices, this primary for me comes down to two choices. Alexander Nevsky can force peace with certain civs by sending three trade routes to them, which could either be very crafty or irritating depending on how the AI uses it. Alternatively, there's Tsar Nicholas II, known to be good with his big carpets and who won a hotly-contested Arctic AI game not too long ago. On balance I'm probably going with Alexander Nevsky, a more historically successful figure and one that makes a nice change from the normal Russias, but feel free to vote for Tsar Nick, especially if you also want a Soviet Russia in the 11th and are anticipating the rematch of the ages. DISTRICT 11 KIEVAN RUS' The famous Kievan Rus' mod, Tomatekh's Yaroslav, has a very mixed AI record and one CS-based unique. The unknown challenger, TarcisioCM's Olga, on the other hand, has a set of nifty uniques based around various kinds of diplomatic deals, and they're more useful in an AI game than that sounds. To be honest, Olga sounds like a better AI bet, but I'm an old modder, and we look out for our own. Yaroslav was one of Tomatekh's first mods at a time when Lua modding was in its infancy, and I'll be voting for it so we can be reminded - in the words of Emperor Meiji from The Last Samurai - who we are and where we come from. USSR Lenin or Stalin? It's up there with "Mario or Luigi?", "gif or jif?", and "one horse-sized duck or twenty duck-sized horses?". It's a question that's echoed down the ages anywhere with a decent enough communist presence - I say 'decent' because every proper town has one - and now it has come to CBR. However, the historical version of this question is a much deeper one than the CBR version, as the latter essentially boils down to whether or not you want a repeat of Mk2's USSR, which was Stalin. I don't, particularly; I'd be perfectly happy with more Soviets, but that can be achieved without the full repeat. I'm voting for a combustible Lenin that burns life's house down. DISTRICT 13 BYZANTIUM I said STOP THROWING PRIMARIES AT ME, BALKANS. Weren't you listening? And this one's Rome all over again. The Lacs Long Post from last time recommends DJSHenninger's Basil II, but the AI record seems to lean more towards JFD's Justinian I. There's also DJSHenninger's Justinian I, not just there to make the last two choices more confusing, but also there because its background is shocking pink, which in my humble opinion is a reason to choose it in itself. Ultimately, though, I'm picking another mod. Although I do like voting for modders in their strongholds, and this is DJSHenninger's, this time I'm going for EnigmaConundrum's Basil II, as this is the more likely of the two of (CBR fan) EnigmaConundrum's mods to qualify. The other one, after all, is an America. HITTITES These Middle Eastern regions are irritating for me, because I know that the region has a shitload of history, but I am equally aware that I don't know much of it at all beyond modern times. The Hittites are a prime example of this. I know that they lived near and interacted with ancient Greeks and Egyptians, and that they left behind a decent amount of archaeology, and that's... it, really. So if you know who Suppiluliuma I or Mursili II are and think one's cooler than the other, vote for them. As for me, if I even vote at all in this primary, I'll vote Suppiluliuma I, because Mursili crashed and burned in Elimi-Nation. ISRAEL Two Israels, hmm, I'll definitely go for... oh phew, they're both the Biblical sort of Israel. David was the one we had in Mk2, and although he'd be welcome to come back, I wonder if Solomon might be worth a look-in here. If you want more Israeli scouts, Mk2-style, then David is the one to pick, and besides it's quite a nice civ to look at imho. I might go Solomon, though, for his better AI record and not-repeat-ness. JERUSALEM Neither has that good an AI record, so I'm going on uniques, not least because even the names of these two are the same but for one having a larger Roman numeral suffix. Baldwin III it is. Its uniques, with their talk of unique 'crusading orders', are reminiscent of a LastSword civ, odd seeing as the LastSword Jerusalem is the other one. Anyway, although Baldwin IV has a lovely white and gold colour scheme, its uniques don't really come into play when there aren't any holy cities nearby (so 95% of the time), so I'm going for the more versatile MC option. LYDIA The two Lydias don't have much between them. Neither has an AI record, and all three uniques reference the same things, although the CurlySnail version has more interesting specific effects for the bonuses. It's down to modders, then, and although ryanjames deserves credit for being the creator of the Manx, I'm going for CurlySnail's Lydia, not least because it's clear from the campaigning that he cares about getting his civs in. OTTOMANS I feel like I'm going through Death by Mediterranean Primary right now, and the Ottos, with their seven civs to choose from - even after JFD's Mehmed was removed for being an immediate repeat - aren't helping one bit. Being judgemental about AI history eliminates Mehmed V, Mahmud II, and vanilla, but we're still left with four. I'll pick Mehmed II (note, do not confuse with Mahmud II) by LastSword, which at least looks like a strong scientific pick, gaining science when building a military and featuring a semi-liberalised observatory UB. PHOENICIA We've reached the Land of Purple, however much these interminable Med primaries are reminding me that Pokemon teaches us that purple means poison. Nonetheless, I'm immediately biased against LastSword's Pygmalion due to lack of violet. That leaves us with the two Hirams, neither of which was made by his modder namesake. Sukritact's Phoenicia underperformed in Elimi-Nation, but has a decent AI record in general, and was responsible for a brief if entertaining game of cat and mouse before their demise in the aforementioned game. I'm still going with the apparently "militaristic" AI of MayorS's Hiram, though, albeit partly because their colour scheme is double purple. Well, pink on purple. Close enough. UMAYYADS Last one in the 13th! This one is fairly close, both of them have mid-tier AI and pleasant enough colour schemes. The uniques, too, aren't too far off from one another in quality, but I'm giving the edge to DJSHenninger's Al-Walid I, which can make faith output actually useful by passively spawning military units based on said statistic. Put this in the "I don't know really" pile, though. Al-Malik's looks quite fun to play as, at least. DISTRICT 14 GEORGIA I don't want Georgia. Like, seriously, I don't want Georgia. Tamar fans feel so entitled sometimes, especially when the competition in this famously diverse part of the world is so fierce. Abkhazia! The Khazar Khaganate! There are so many better options! Therefore, I'm backing David IV in the primary, mainly to reduce the chances of Georgia winning the general. I encourage anyone else who wants a non-Georgia civ in this district to do the same. DISTRICT 15 AYYUBIDS This is another one where I need to search a bit to find excuses to back one civ over another, given that the repeat/not-repeat question is going to loom more over this primary than the actual relative merits of the two Ayyubid civs. Neither has a good AI record. The MC one, which is the one from Mk2, has the nicer colour scheme by some distance (imho), but its uniques are a bit more situational and a bit more dependent on the religion game. Therefore - and this is very much a tentative thing, I know 95% of people will ignore this one way or the other, which sounds OK to me - this is one of the rare times I'll back a repeat, of a civ that we didn't see much of at all in Mk2 at the end of the day. MC's Saladin it is. EGYPT (ANCIENT) Ancient Egypt has perhaps the highest "total history:history Homu knows" ratio of any primary in the game. It sounds fascinating, but I still haven't got around to actually learning much about the details yet, especially seeing as there's so much of it. Like, thousands of years. Anyway, I'm deferring to someone who knows better here - in this case, our friendly neighbourhood modding expert, TopHatPaladin - and backing Thutmose, with Djoser a good second. HOWEVER, I know of one effort underway to do a much more comprehensive analysis of this primary, so I might hold back on full-throated endorsements just yet. EGYPT (PTOLEMAIC) I'm going with Cleopatra here, because if we're going Ptolemaic, we might as well go the whole way. Yes, she probably doesn't deserve the amount of attention history has given her, but on the other hand, it's good to have a few familiar faces, and I find Cleo less boring than, say, Peter I. Probably because of the RNG biasing towards Russia the few times I played Civ 6. If you want to vote Ptolemy, I'm not going to try and persuade you otherwise. DISTRICT 16 CARTHAGE Seriously, I had to google which Carthage it was that was in Mk2. Turns out it was Hannibal, and I don't feel as warmly towards a Hannibal repeat as I would for Saladin or David. So we're down to Didos. So, for once, I'm going vanilla. I'm endorsing Firaxis Dido, because JFD's edited UA, despite being further away from Hannibal than the vanilla one is, seems distinctly unfun with its gobbling up sea tiles in a crowded area. DISTRICT 18 ASHANTI Another repeat vs not-repeat primary, and the third one of the many primaries of this category in which I'm endorsing the repeat. Although my top choice in this region is not either Ashanti (Sankara! Sankara! Sankaraaaaaaa!), I can't help but smile if I consider a return of the civ's legendary Pikeman, this time in disembarked form. Vote MC's Osei Tutu for old school gold stool cool. DISTRICT 19 KANEM BORNU A lower-mid tier AI and general feeling that Gedemo is underappreciated won't stop me in this case from going with DMS/MC's Idris Alauma in this humdrum primary. It has a slightly-below-average AI record, but it is one with one breakout included, and although its uniques feel rather unpredictable, that's a good thing, surely? NOK Again, sorry Gedemo, but I'm going with Ultra's Nok here. I don't know much about the culture, but that's not the point here. Nok is a legend in the modding community, a mod that took so long to come out it became a meme, and then... it actually got released. Let's celebrate that and get it through the primary, shall we? (Not my top choice in the general, but still.) Also, snakes. NRI The bombshell here is JFD's Nri UA: civs being unable to declare war on them before the Industrial Era if they share "their" religion. While it's unclear whether that means they have to have founded it or not, that would seriously change the course of the Africa game, especially seeing as they are apparently unlikely to declare wars on their own. Moriboe's doesn't seem militaristic either, despite its UA that sucks population from other civs (again, only in "pre-modern" times), and I feel like taking a bit of a punt on an unusual Africa. JFD's Nri it is. DISTRICT 21 ETHIOPIA If Ethiopia has two carbon atoms in it, what's the rest of it made from? ...Chemistry gags aside, there are five Ethiopias, courtesy of DMS, for whom Addis Ababa appears to be something of a centre of power. Of course, I'm immediately going to rule out the vanilla version, which is also a repeat. Likewise, I don't feel enthusiastic about Menelik II, who inherited the vanilla uniques in the DMS split. DMS's Haile might be worth a look with its updated uniques - including the Makonnen triplane, which I keep misreading as Harkonnen triplane - but I think I'm going with Zara Yaqob. She's another female leader, with defensive-religious hybrid uniques that sound like they could be as awkward for would-be invaders as Gudit's were against Zimbabwe. Oh, and if you like Indira Gandhi's colour scheme, Zara isn't too far off. SOMALIA I'm leaning towards TopHat's Mohammed Siad Barre in Africa's last primary. To be honest, I don't quite understand some of the uniques of the other Somalia, and although that hasn't stopped me in the past, loyalty to a modder who's helped me out on countless occasions must play a part here, along with an intriguing mixture of naval military, trade, and unique writers, and a rather nice blue colour scheme.
Real football predictions! Enter on Scannerbet and see the best betting tips from the major bookmakers.⭐ Bet Analysis and predictions. These elections can be considered European for at least six reasons: Because Greece’s weight in the European structure does not correspond to its size. This is not just about the rhetoric on the importance of Greece in the collective imagination, in the culture and symbology of Europe (no need to look further than the name of the continent Bet on UK politics here. Most Seats at European Elections Most Seats at Next General Election Overall Majority at Next General Election Year of Next Election Theresa May Exit Date The election’s turning point was the triumph of the populist left-wing party SYRIZA of Alexis Tsipras. For a first in the history of modern Greece, a left-wing political party won the elections, even if these elections were for the European Parliament. Tsipras, called for general elections to be held immediately. View the latest odds on European Politics Matches & Bet with Sportsbet. Join Australia's Favourite Online Betting and Entertainment Website. One of the world's leading online gambling companies. The most comprehensive In-Play service. Deposit Bonus for New Customers. Watch Live Sport. We stream over 100,000 events. Bet on Sportsbook and Casino. £30 Bet £10 Get £30 in Free Bets + £10 Casino Bonus. Min deposit £10 • A qualifying bet is a ‘real money’ stake of at least £10 • Min odds 1/2 (1.5) • Free Bets credited upon qualifying bet settlement and expires after 7 days • Free Bet stakes not included in returns • Deposit balance is available for withdrawal at any time • Casino Bonus must be claimed within 7 days On Sunday, Greece will hold general elections, where the vote is being seen as a choice for the Greek people between embracing structural reforms to remain within the European Union, or to reject European Union website - EUROPA is the official EU website that provides access to information published by all EU institutions, agencies and bodies. European Politics Betting Odds. View all available outright and match odds, plus get news, tips, free bets and money-back offers. All you need to bet.
Nigel Farage: EU faces Greek democracy in great euro poker ...
The European Union is making a very similar mistake because there is no consent for this project. I've heard people this morning, talking about the need for a United States of Europe on a federal ... Motion Graphics. Skip navigation Sign in The European Parliament is the only directly-elected EU body. Members of the Parliament represent you, the citizen. Members of the European Parliament make decisions which affect you directly. The ... “I’m surprised that you are here. You were fighting for the exit. The British people voted for the exit. Why are you here?” European Commission President Jea... Voting underway in Greece for European parliamentary election ... Undertaker turns to gallows humour in campaign for Greek local elections - Duration: 0:57 ... BEST Magic Show in ... The EU and Bible Prophecy highlights the latest news headlines in the EU that align with Bible Prophecy. The EU is evolving into the final world empire, which is likened to the revival of the ... Close. This video is unavailable. The best of Sky News video from the UK and around the world.Sky News is now available in Spanish/Los video de Sky News están disponibles en español aquí: htt... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Subscribe to France 24 now:http://f24.my/youtubeENFRANCE 24 live news stream: all the latest news 24/7http://f24.my/YTliveENEuropean Elections: Follow the Sp...